Precision Farming with Smart Sensors: Current State, Challenges and Future Outlook
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1.Clearly define the specific connotation of “Smart Sensor” in the agricultural context, highlighting its characteristics in addressing unstructured environments and biological variability.
2.Deepen the analysis in the “Challenges” section, strengthen the logical links among the categories, and establish a closer connection with the core research of this paper.
3.Add content to the “Current Status” section to provide an in-depth examination of the algorithms and model mechanisms behind intelligent sensor decision-making.
4.Redraw the figures to enhance the dimensions of technical comparison and overall visualization quality.
5.Reorganize the literature review following the technological evolution pathway and supplement it with high-quality studies from the past three years.
6.Propose a phased technical roadmap with clearly identified key issues for each stage.
7.Standardize the use of terms such as “Precision Agriculture,” “Smart Farming,” and “Digital Agriculture” throughout the manuscript to ensure terminological rigor.
8.Add a discussion on the sensor data value chain and agricultural knowledge discovery.
Author Response
Please see attached
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsCorrections to the body of the text.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript provides an overview of smart sensor technologies in precision agriculture. The topic is relevant and the manuscript is generally well organized. However, several issues need to be addressed before publication.
Here are detailed comments:
1. The paper does not explain how the reviewed literature was chosen Right now, it’s unclear how the authors selected the papers they cite. Even a short paragraph describing the search approach (databases, keywords, inclusion range, etc.) would make the review feel more structured and rigorous.
2. Many sections describe technologies but stop short of analyzing them The paper gives a lot of overviews (e.g., soil sensors, imaging sensors, WSNs, IoT platforms), but it would help to add a bit more reflection on questions like:
- Which technologies actually work well in real field conditions?
- Which ones still face major limitations?
- How do different sensing approaches compare to each other?
Even a few sentences of comparative insight would make the review much stronger.
3. Technical robustness isn’t discussed in much detail For example, issues like:
- sensor drift, calibration problems,
- failure under harsh weather,
- network instability in rural areas,
- AI models struggling with noisy agricultural data
These are real challenges in smart agriculture but are only briefly mentioned. Expanding these parts would give the reader a more realistic picture.
4. Some sections look like lists rather than analysis Tables and subsections sometimes just list sensor types or challenges without explaining what they mean for actual deployment.
A little more interpretation (“why this matters”, “how big a problem it is”, etc.) would help.
5. Real-world limitations could be more concrete Right now the manuscript stays theoretical. Examples like:
- long-term maintenance difficulty,
- cost barriers for small farmers,
- lack of standardization between vendors,
- energy constraints for remote sensors
would make the discussion feel more grounded.
6. Subsections that are only one or two sentences long need expansion Several subsections end almost immediately after starting. This makes the paper feel fragmented. These should either be expanded or merged with neighboring sections.
7. It would help to highlight 2–3 actual research gaps Things like lack of public datasets, limited real-time validation studies, or the gap between lab prototypes and practical deployment. This will help readers understand where the field is heading.
8. The future trends section can be more focused Instead of very broad statements (e.g., “AI will improve agriculture”), it would help to talk more specifically about what is realistically coming next, and what technical hurdles remain before those technologies become widely usable.
9. A bit more clarity on sustainability aspects Since sustainability is one of the motivations, elaborating on energy use, sensor disposal, or long-term operational cost would tie the review together better.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article could address some market information or statistical data on the adoption of the technology to date.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
